Walmart lawsuit (re gender discrimination in USA)

In 2001, six female employees of Walmart filed suit against their company in US federal court alleging that Walmart discriminated against them in salary, bonuses and training. After extensive discovery and oral argument, in 2003 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint requesting that the court certify the case as a class action on behalf of current and former female Walmart employees maintaining that the discrimination faced by the original plaintiffs was systematic in nature and affected all women employed by Walmart. In June of 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The lawsuit represents approximately 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees, which makes it the largest workplace bias case in US history. Walmart appealed the class certification decision.

In February of 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling granting class action status to this gender discrimination lawsuit. In February 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Walmart's request for an en banc review of the lower court's ruling granting class action status. This review was heard in late March 2009. In April 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this lawsuit could move forward to trial as a class action lawsuit. Walmart petitioned the Supreme Court in August 2010 asking it to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling allowing this lawsuit to proceed as a class action. The company maintains that the claims should be handled individually (or in smaller groups) rather than as a class of more than one million women. In December 2010 the Supreme Court announced that it would hear Walmart's appeal in this case. The Court heard oral arguments in late March 2011. The Court issued its ruling on 20 June 2011 reversing the court of appeals ruling allowing the case profile as a class action. On 27 October 2011, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint with the federal court in San Francisco, claiming gender bias on behalf of workers in California. On 16 January 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit, claiming the smaller proposed class action seeks to cover all women who were employed at any Walmart in any region that included a California store. This motion to dismiss was rejected by the court of appeals in September 2012. In August 2013, however, the district court issued an order denying the women class certification. If the women want to pursue the claims against Walmart, they will have to each pursue their respective claims individually.

In June 2012, nearly 2,000 female Walmart employees filed discrimination charges against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In August 2013, the US federal court issued an order denying the women class certification. If the women want to pursue the claims against Walmart, each will have to pursue her claims individually.

In November 2017, seven women who were part of the 2001 suit filed a new lawsuit in Florida Southern District Court alleging gender discrimination in compensation and promotion against Walmart and Sam’s Club female employees in three regions in the southeastern USA. The plaintiffs are asking for compensation including back pay and damages for lost compensation and job benefits. Walmart once again declared that these claims were not suited to qualify as class action.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is being sued once again by a group of women who say they faced gender discrimination while working for the world’s biggest retailer.

...The case is part of the legacy of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a 2001 suit that claimed the company had a pattern of discriminating against women in promotion, pay, training and job assignment. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision to grant class certification and imposed revised guidelines for class actions related to employment discrimination.

...Addressing the Supreme Court’s revised guidelines, the complaint focuses on allegations of workers within the southeastern U.S.

[A] Wal-Mart spokesman, said... “These claims are unsuitable for class treatment because the situations of each individual are so different, and because the claims are not representative of the hundreds of thousands of women who work at Wal-Mart."

Wal-Mart settled a gender discrimination lawsuit from a former named plaintiff in Betty Dukes' class action that sought to certify 1.5 million female employees. Stephanie Odle, of Lubbock, was an original plaintiff in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to certify a class of current employees in June 2011 due to insufficient commonality between the plaintiffs…Odle filed a separate class action four months after the Supreme Court decision, claiming female workers face "gender discrimination as a result of specific policies and practices in Wal-Mart's regions located in whole or in part in Texas."…Odle agreed to voluntarily dismiss her claims…, according to a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice…Terms of the settlement are confidential, Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said.

Categories

A federal judge erred in finding that the statute of limitations bars individual claims from one of the original plaintiffs in the gender-bias suit against Wal-Mart, the 5th Circuit ruled…Stephanie Odle…had been an original member of the class action Dukes v. Wal-Mart, but the 9th Circuit tossed "former employees" like her in 2010, concluding that they lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief…A year later, the U.S. Supreme Court famously decertified the class of current employees on the basis of insufficient commonality…Odle filed a separate class action in October 2011, four months after the Supreme Court decision…U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Dallas dismissed even Odle's individual claims, however, under the statute of limitations…[T]he 5th Circuit reversed…and remanded for reconsideration of Odle's individual claims. The relevant statute of limitations remained tolled when Odle sued...

Categories

In 2001, six female employees of Walmart filed suit against their company in US federal court alleging that Walmart discriminated against them in salary, bonuses and training. After extensive discovery and oral argument, in 2003 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint requesting that the court certify the case as a class action on behalf of current and former female Walmart employees maintaining that the discrimination faced by the original plaintiffs was systematic in nature and affected all women employed by Walmart. In June of 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The lawsuit represents approximately 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees, which makes it the largest workplace bias case in US history. Walmart appealed the class certification decision. In February of 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling granting class action status to this gender discrimination lawsuit. In February 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Walmart's request for an en banc review of the lower court's ruling granting class action status. This review was heard in late March 2009. In April 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that this lawsuit could move forward to trial as a class action lawsuit. Walmart petitioned the Supreme Court in August 2010 asking it to hear an appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling allowing this lawsuit to proceed as a class action. The company maintains that the claims should be handled individually (or in smaller groups) rather than as a class of more than one million women. In December 2010 the Supreme Court announced that it would hear Walmart's appeal in this case. The Court heard oral arguments in late March 2011. The Court issued its ruling on 20 June 2011 reversing the court of appeals ruling allowing the case profile as a class action. On 27 October 2011, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint with the federal court in San Francisco, claiming gender bias on behalf of workers in California. On 16 January 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit, claiming the smaller proposed class action seeks to cover all women who were employed at any Walmart in any region that included a California store. This motion to dismiss was rejected by the court of appeals in September 2012. In August 2013, however, the district court issued an order denying the women class certification. If the women want to pursue the claims against Walmart, they will have to each pursue their respective claims individually.

In June 2012, nearly 2,000 female Walmart employees filed discrimination charges against the company with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In August 2013, the US federal court issued an order denying the women class certification. If the women want to pursue the claims against Walmart, each will have to pursue her claims individually.

The Access to Judicial Remedy (A2JR) Project set out to identify and analyze the barriers in the United States, Canada, and Europe…The detailed mapping exercise undertaken in the development of this Report shows that States are generally not fulfilling their obligation to ensure access to effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations by businesses operating outside their territory. Victims continue to face barriers that at times can completely block their access to an effective remedy…These barriers have been overcome in only some instances…Victims of human rights violations by business, wherever the violations occur, are entitled to full and effective access to judicial remedies. In order to provide this, each State should examine the barriers in their jurisdiction and consider the range of actions they can take to alleviate them, and in particular, the recommendations contained in this Report…[Refers to Alstom, Amesys (part of Bull), Anvil Mining (part of China Minmetals), Barrick Gold, Bull, Cambior, Cape PLC, Chevron, Chiquita, Daimler, DLH (Dalhoff Larsen & Horneman), Drummond, ExxonMobil, HudBay Minerals, Monterrico Metals (part of Zijin), Shell, Talisman, Texaco (part of Chevron), Thor Chemicals, Unocal (part of Chevron), Veolia Environnement (formerly Vivendi), Veolia Transport (part of Veolia Environnement), Walmart, Zijin]

When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in June 2011, no one needed a Richter scale to know it was a Big One. In throwing out a mammoth lawsuit by women employees who claimed that they'd been systematically underpaid and underpromoted by the world's biggest corporation, the ruling upended decades of employment discrimination law and raised serious barriers to future large-scale discrimination cases of every kind…Two years later, it's becoming clear just how much the ruling has reshaped the American legal landscape. One measure of that change is the difference in the size of employee discrimination settlements…Another measure, lawyers representing women and minorities say, is the drop-off in new employment discrimination class-action lawsuits being filed. [Also refers to National City Bank, Merrill Lynch (part of Bank of America), Nucor, Costco.]

Site tools

Follow us

Disclaimer: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre and its collaborative partners take no position on the diverse views presented in linked material by the various commentators, organizations & companies. As with any database, we cannot guarantee the factual accuracy of all the articles & reports we make available.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.